I agree that both the Narrator and Tyler are meant to be seen as anti-heroes. :) I think that the scene after Bob's death really emphasises this. For me, it was the first time that I realised exactly what Tyler had done to all of those once ordinary people - he effectively brainwashed them. He destroyed them (making them physically and mentally suffer), and then he rebuilt them as a group-minded, emotionless army (through the unspoken promise of hope and salvation). Those people used to have personalities. The irony is, Tyler was able to manipulate them by playing on their sense of isolation, and lack of identity or freedom. But without them knowing, they lost what identity they had possessed, and became even more trapped than before.
Well, both the original novel and the film adaptation were quite controversial for this very reason... there were people who did not understand that the central protagonist(s) were intended to be viewed as anti-heroes, and that the story was intended as a critique of a certain mindset, so they tried to emulate the behaviour of the main characters...
I think this is the main reason why the film is rated R. Although I agree that the main characters are intended as anti-heroes, I can also see how a lot of people would latch onto Tyler in the same way as the members of Fight Club did. Because of the nature of Tyler's character (he's fearless, confident, witty, charismatic, and utterly insane), people are naturally drawn to him, because he embodies everything that they would like to be. Just as the Narrator and the members of Fight Club used Tyler as a source of strength and stability, others in RL might try to do the same. After all, I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel just as isolated and dissatisfied with the shallow nature of their lives as the Narrator does. And the thing that makes the film even more ambiguous is the fact that a lot of what Tyler says makes a lot of sense, especially to people looking for answers. :P
ie. "It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything."
"Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing."
Or his famous speech:
"I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy [censored] we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very [censored] off."
And anyway, I think that Tyler is a character who seems to naturally inspire admiration, simply because of his strong character. And in most films that portray terrorism, the terrorist (even if fighting against a system which is clearly corrupt, and our current society really isn't that bad :P ) is always defeated in some way, or forced to pay for their crimes, or sacrifices themselves in an act of martyrdom. I think another ambivalent thing about this film is the fact that
the Narrator doesn't die, and it ends with him watching the destruction that he has unwittingly caused. But I guess what I'm trying to say (in a very long-winded way :P ) is that I agree that the Narrator and Tyler are meant to be seen as anti-heroes, and their actions are portrayed as morally reprehensible. But I can also see how a lot of people would grow to admire Tyler and copy his actions, even if that was not the director's intention. :nod:
Hmmmm, you see, I do not believe that Tyler is really trying to change their lives or impart any greater sense of truth to their existence - that's just the spin that his character uses in order to manipulate others and feed his own egotistic need for adulation.
Well, I haven't read the book, so maybe this is made more clear in the novel. :) I'm not sure whether Tyler actually wanted to help them or not. I agree that a major motivation for his actions was the admiration and hero-worshipping that he received from the people around him. He made himself their God, in a lot of ways. "In Tyler we trust," - it sounds a lot like they're worshipping him. And the Narrator definitely felt isolated and impotent in his job and his life, so it only makes sense for Tyler to be seeking a connection with people, and for him to want to have power over others. He definitely enjoys ruling over people and having their unquestioning loyalty and reliance. It validates his existence, in a way.
But I also think that the Narrator was honestly troubled by the materialistic nature of his life. He didn't like the way that the rich and powerful always ruled over the weak, because it made him feel powerless. So I think that it also makes sense that Tyler would want to change that. I'm not sure if Tyler feels that he's helping his Space Monkeys (he doesn't seem to care too much about their lives, after all), but I do think that Tyler feels that he's making the world a better place. Tyler's actions are all working towards making his vision of the world a reality. He envisions a hunter-gatherer type of world, where people follow their basic instincts, and are thereby freed of the constraints of society. In some ways, this is what the Narrator wants, as well. I think think that Tyler feels it will free people.
The chilling illusion of the "Fight Club" itself is that for all it's visceral glamour, it is just another symbol of waste, and Tyler Durden is ultimately no more humanitarian than the white collar CEOs he rails against - he's simply offering the same kind of oppression dressed up in different clothing.
I agree completely. :nod: I think this is one of the things that makes the film so powerful. It reminds me a bit of Brave New World in this way (with a consumerist society where people have no freedom, or an extreme hunter-gatherer type world which is brutal and in many ways no better than the first). :nod:
